Ar prievolė apgyvendinimo įstaigoms registruoti visus svečius nepažeidžia teisės į privatų gyvenimą?
Urbonaitė, Rugilė |
Lietuvos Respublikos turizmo įstatymu yra numatyta, kad apgyvendinimo įstaigos turi rinkti asmens duomenis statistikos tikslais bei tikslais susijusiais su baudžiamuoju persekiojimu, grėsmės pašalinimu ar asmens apsauga. Šio darbo tikslas yra išanalizuoti ir nustatyti ar Lietuvos Respublikos turizmo įstatymo 32 str. 1 d. 3 p. numatyti tikslai yra proporcingi ir nėra pažeidžiama teisė į privatų gyvenimą. Darbo uždaviniais siekiama išanalizuoti Lietuvos Respublikos turizmo įstatymo bei kitų teisės aktų susijusių su šio įstatymo įgyvendinimu reglamentavimą bei jo pasikeitimą, išnagrinėti duomenų rinkimą statistikos tikslais arba kitu įstatyme numatytu tikslu dėl asmens duomenų gavimo baudžiamojo persekiojimo tikslais, grėsmės pašalinimu sąvokas, nustatyti ar asmens duomenys, renkami statistikos tikslais, gali būti pateikti nuasmeninti, įvertinti ar Lietuvos Respublikos turizmo įstatymu numatyta prievolė rinkti asmens duomenis yra proporcinga siekiamiems tikslams ir nepažeidžia teisės į privatų gyvenimą bei įvertinti ar Lietuvos Respublikos turizmo įstatymu numatyta prievolė rinkti asmens duomenis Šengeno susitarimo 45 straipsnio 1 dalies b punkte numatytais tikslais yra proporcinga. Tyrimo metu nustatyta, kad Lietuvos Respublikos turizmo įstatymas per pastaruosius keletą metų keitėsi, taip įstatymų leidėjas sistemingai didino asmens duomenų rinkimo apimtį, reikalingą pateikti apgyvendinimo įstaigoms, be kita ko, pastebėtina, kad įstatymų leidėjas numatė vis naujus asmens duomenų rinkimo tikslus. Taip pat nustatyta, kad statistikos tikslams renkami duomenys gali būti nuasmeninti arba asmuo gali pateikti tik savo amžių, lytį, gyvenamąjį miestą, o ne priešingai nei nustato įstatymas - vardą, pavardę, gyvenamąją vietą, adresą, asmens dokumento numerį. Atitinkamai vertinant ar tai atitinka proporcingumo principą, darytina išvada, kad toks įstatymo numatytas tikslas gali būti įgyvendintas ir kitomis priemonėmis nei numatyta dabartiniame reguliavime. Nustatyta, kad baudžiamojo persekiojimo, asmens paieškos ar grėsmės pašalinimo tikslas yra proporcingas ir nepažeidžia teisės į privatų gyvenimą, tačiau teisėsaugos institucijoms gavus asmens duomenis iš duomenų tvarkytojo, duomenų subjektas negali pateikti skundo dėl tokio duomenų gavimo pagrįstumo ar teisėtumo, todėl šis reguliavimas taip pat tobulintinas.
The aim of this thesis is to assess whether the norm of Article 32 of the Lithuanian Tourism Act. 1 d. 3 p., which provides for the obligation to register all guests by collecting their data, does not violate the right to a private life. It should be noted that such regulation is provided for statistics and prosecution, the removal of the state, and the search for the person. This requirement is applied to institutions that according to the description of the types of accommodations are hotels, guest houses, rural tourism homesteads, tourist camp services, youth hostels, holiday homes, private accommodation houses, and sanatoriums. For persons who wish to use the accommodation services, data that has to be collected by these accommodation institutions are name, surname, personal document number, residential address, and number of nights. The legislator justifies such regulation by the fact that this regulation aims to collect statistics to provide more effective conditionsfor the prosperity of tourism business, and the data is valuable not only to attract new investors but also to improve existing businesses. However, Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms and Article 9 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union protects a person's right to private life, including that every person has the right to be respected for his personal and family privacy. This leads to the fact that excess and disproportionate collection of personal data can violate the right to private life. In this context, legal issues are the result that two legal values are opposed to this regulation - the right to collect statistics and the right to private life. Problematic aspects have emerged when analyzing legal regulations related to collecting personal data in the tourism sector. First, whether collecting personal data for statistical purposes, as provided for in the Law on Tourism of the Republic of Lithuania, does not violate the right to private life, especially because a person may be misled and wrongly comprehended the risk of submitting his/ her data. Secondly, whether the other objective of the Republic of Lithuania that is related to the case of criminal persecution, disappearance of a person or another situation of greater social importance that needs to be solved is a greater good than a person's privacy. Therefore, the study aimed to analyse the regulation of the Law on Tourism of the Republic of Lithuania and other legal acts related to the implementation of this law, as well as its changes, to examine, data collection for statistical purposes or for other law provided purpose of obtaining personal data for the purposes of criminal persecution, the concepts and scope of threats to be eliminated, to determine whether personal data, collected for statistical purposes may be anonymized, to assess whether the obligation to collect personal data provided by the Law on Tourism of the Republic of Lithuania is proportionate to the objectives pursued and does not violate the right to private life, to assess whether the obligation of the Law on Tourism of the Republic of Lithuania to collect personal data for the purposes of criminal persecution, for person’s search and the removal of a threat is proportionate, to determine possible violations of the right to private life by linking this to the electronic system violations. During the implementation of set out tasks, it has been noted that the legislator systematically increases the scope of personal data necessary for the submission of accommodation institutions, among other things, after examining how the Law on Tourism of the Republic of Lithuania changed, it is noteworthy that the legislator has planned new goals, such as statistical goals. To assess whether the scope of the collected personal data is proportional to the work a proportion test was used as an assessment criterion. It has been shown that not all elements of the proportionality test are implemented in the collection of data and as a result, it can be argued that such an obligation provided for by law violates the right to private life. Given that personal data for statistical purposes may be sufficient and unable to establish an identity directly, it has been found that data collected for statistical purposes may be anonymized or a person can only provide the age, gender, and city, rather than, unlike the law - name, surname, place of residence. The right to privacy may be infringed, if personal data is used repeatedly or not for the purpose of consent to the person who has given it for which the data will be used. In assessing the other objective of the Republic of Lithuania, personal data may be collected for prosecution, European Court of Human Rights Brayer against Germany case has been analogously investigated in this context. After examining the submitted opinion of the judge in the case, it must be concluded that a person's private life may be violated, when there is no possibility of a person, whose data has been submitted to law enforcement authorities, to appeal to such a transfer of personal data. It was also concluded that although the protection of personal data collection is regulated by GDPR, it should be noted that personal data violation is narrower than the right to private life, therefore, although personal data protection, management, and processing elements are not vulnerable to this does not in itself mean that the right to private life is not violated either, on the contrary, although all personal data rules are followed, inadequate transfer, for example, at the request of law enforcement, may be considered a violation of a person's right to private life. Analyzing the relevant regulations in other countries, such as Hungary and Spain, it can be argued that Lithuania's regulation due to the obligation to register the guests of the accommodation institution is not sufficiently adjusted, because first of all, in Hungary, a specific goal is that data can only be used by law enforcement agencies and that such data can only be accessed by the latter, thus avoiding a situation where law enforcement, although lawfully obtained, cannot challenge the collection of personal data, whereas in Spain, on the contrary, it is possible to do so, and this is what leads to the assumption that in Lithuania, using better practice of others', regulation is to be improved.